Ichalkarangi Nagarpalika Adarsh Kamgar Union and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

=1=

IN THE HIGH COURT OF	JUDICATURE	AT	BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELL	ATE	JU	RISDICTION
WRIT PETITION	NO.4959	OF	2006
Ichalkarangi Nagarpalika	Adarsh		Kamgar
Union and anr. ...Petitioners
v/s
State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents
Mr M.S. Topkar for Petitioners.
Mr C.R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr T.S. Ingale for Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶3

CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND S.J. KATHAWALLA JJ. DATE : 12TH DECEMBER 2008

¶4

P.C.-

¶5

Rule. By consent, rule made returnable

¶6

forthwith. Learned Advocates for respondents waive service. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

¶7

2.		The petitioners are trade unions repr	esenting
the	employees	of the respondent	No.3	-	Ichal	karanji
Municipal	Council.	The present petitio	n is	filed	by	the
petitioners	impugning	the order passed	by	the	resp	ondent
No.2	i.e.	Director, Municipal	Administra	tion	dated	9th

¶8

=2=

¶9

February	2006	rejecting	all the conten	tions	of	the
employees’	and	after	review, cancelling		the	earlier
eleven	orders	granting	personal pay-	scales	to	the
employees	and	restoring	the pay-scales as	per	the	IVth

¶10

Pay Commission and further directing recovery of excess

¶11

amount paid to the concerned employees.

¶12

The petitioners have alleged that right from

¶13

1966,	the	employees of	respond	ent	No.3	in Class	IV	have
been	drawi	ng pay-scales	which	are	one	stage	higher	than

¶14

the pay-scales drawn by the employees of other Municipal

¶15

Council or the State Government in the same cadre.

¶16

4. On 20th	July 1989, the State Gover	nment
adopted and accepted	the IVth	Pay Co	mmission
recommendations for	its employees	with retr	ospective
effect from 1st Jan	uary 1986.	The Chief	Officer
submitted his report	to the	respondent No.3	-
Ichalkaranji Municipal	Council fo	r fixation	of
pay-scales for its	employees on the	lines of IVth	Pay
Commission, but one	stage higher.	The respondent	No.3
accordingly passed resolut	ion No.258 in	its meeting	held
on 14th August 1990	. In order to	justify the	higher
pay-scales the respondent	Nos.2 and 3,	while passing	the
resolution, acknowledged	variant needs	of the city,	its

¶17

sound financial position and appreciated the efforts of

¶18

the employees.

¶19

=3=

¶20

5.	On 1st January 1993, the respond	ent Nos.3 and
4 s	ought sanction from respondent	No.2 to the	said
resolution	as per section 76(2)	of the Muni	cipalities
Act.	The respondent No.2 issued	orders dated	19th
October	1991, 22nd April 1994, 17th	June 1995 and	22nd
April	1994 sanctioning pay-scales	recommended for	the
respective	posts in the IVth Pay	Commission. Thus,	the
respondent	No.2 refused to sanction	higher pay-scales	as
resolved	and recommended by the	respondent No.3.	The
respondent	No.3, vide resolution No.5	15 dated 30th	March
1992	resolved to request the Go	vernment to review	the
said	order dated 19th October 199	1 under section 32	0 of
the	said Act. In the year 1996	, the respondent	No.2
exercised	powers of review under	section 320 read	with
76(2)	of the said Act and issued	eleven orders	between
24th	June 1996 to 19th December	1996 to revise	the
pay-scales	for the posts menti	oned therein.	The
pay-scales	were to be one stage	higher than reco	mmended
in	IVth Pay Commission and were	to be sanctioned	for
respective	posts as personal pay-sca	les to the e	mployees
working	on the said posts. It	was stated that the	said
pay-scales	would not be applicabl	e to new e	mployees
appointed	after the existing	employees retired	or
vacated	the posts for any reason	whatsoever and the	new

¶21

incumbent was to get the pay-scale as per IVth Pay

¶22

Commission as sanctioned by earlier orders.

¶23

=4=

¶24

¶25

In view thereof, some of the Councillors in

¶26

August	1997 approach	ed this Court by writ	petition
No.4483	of 1997	and sought cancellation of the	orders
passed	by the	respondent No.2 granting	personal
pay-scales	on the	ground of alleged illegality	and
burden	on Council.	Thereafter, on 10th October	1997,
the	respondent No.2	passed orders and revoked	all
sanctions	granted b	y the aforesaid eleven orders	and
restored	the pay-scal	es for the posts as per the	IVth
Pay	Commission.	The employees who were aggrieved	by
this	order of rev	ocation filed writ petition No.5097	of
1997	before this	Court challenging the said order	of
revocation	dated 10th	October 1997 passed by	the
respondent	No.2.	This Court, by its order dated	28th
April	2004 has set	aside the impugned order dated	10th
October	1997 and	directed the respondent No.2 to	hear
the	concerned employees,	all other parties concerned	and
then	pass appropriate	orders. The respondent	No.2,
after	issuing show-cause	notice, reviewed all the	eleven
orders	under section 320	of the said Act and on 9th	June
2006	passed the	order which is impugned	herein,
cancelling	all the	eleven orders granting	personal

¶27

pay-scales and ordering recovery of the excess amounts

¶28

paid to the concerned employees.

¶29

An affidavit in reply is filed by the

¶30

¶31

=5=

¶32

Assistant Administrati	Director, on on behalf	Directorate of the	of Municipal respondent No.3 in which
he	has pointed out	that	the contention of the
petitioners	that Pay	Commission	recommendations are not
applicable	to Munici	pal Council	is incorrect and made
only to	mislead this Co	urt. He	has pointed out that the
Maharashtra	Civil Serv	ices Rules	are made applicable to
the	municipal employees	by the	Directorate by its order
dated	14th May 1984	under sect	ion 76 of the Maharashtra
Municipal	Councils,	Nagarpanchayats	and Industrial
Townships	Act 1965.	The	IVth Pay Commission
recommenda	tions are	covered by	the Maharashtra Civil
Services	(Revised Pay)	Rules 1988.	The pay-scales and
allowances	higher than	the Gov	ernment employees are not
admissible	to the	municipal e	mployees and theretofore,
no	higher pay-scales	can be	sanctioned to the
petitioners.	If it	is done	so, it will be in
contraventio	n to section	76 of the	said Act. He has
also	submitted that	under section	76 of the said Act,
the	Director is empow	ered to fix	the pay-scales of the
municipal	employees and	as per	circular dated 14th May
1984,	the pay-scales	and	allowances higher than
Government	employees are	not ad	missible to the employees
of	the municipal emplo	yees. The	Chief Officer is not a
private	party and under	section 7	of the said Act, the
Chief empowered	Officer is d with the	eclared as execution and	municipal authority and is implementation of the

¶33

=6=

¶34

said A	ct.		Therefore,	the pro	vision	of	limitation		stated
in sect	ion 3	20(iii)	is	not applica	ble.	He	has	th	erefore
contended	that		the	review order	dated	9th	June		2006
impugned	in	the	writ	petition is	passed	acc	ording	to	the
directions	given	by	this	Court in	the	said	petition.		It
is fu	rther	poin	ted	out that	special	pay	or		higher
pay-scale	cannot		be	given to	the	mem	bers	of	the
petitioner	Union.		There	is a p	rovision	of	special	pay	/
allowances	for		additional	responsibility	but	th	ere	is	no
provision	of	higher	pay-sc	ale for the	same	in	the	Act	or
Service	Rules	.	None	of the e	mployees	have	been	able	to

¶35

point out their eligibility or entitlement for higher pay-scale.

¶36

8.			The	aforesaid contentions raised by	the
respondent		No.2	cl	early points out	that	the	higher
pay-scales		which	we	re sanctioned in fav	our	of the	said
employees		is	not	in conformity with	section	76 of	the
said	Act.		We	are also satisfied that	the	order	passed
in	review		is i	n conformity with the	pro	visions of	the
statute	gov	erning		the pay-scales a	nd	conditions	of
service	of	m	unicipal	employees and	is	also	passed
according		to	the	directions given by	this	Court	in writ
petition	No.	5097	of	1997. The	learned	counsel	for
petitioners		has	fail	ed to point out	any	provision	under
which	the	em	ployees	who are members	of	the	petitioners
are e	ntitled	to	the	personal pay-scales	wh	ich are	higher

¶37

=7=

¶38

than	the pay-scales provided under the IVth Pay
Commissio	n nor do they fall under any special category
as	having additional responsibility. The justification
sought	to be given whilst unanimously passing the
resolution,	based on various needs of the city, its
sound	financial position and appreciating the services
of	employees is untenable and baseless and cannot be
upheld	in law. We are therefore of the opinion that the
grant	of higher / personal pay-scales to the employees
of t	he petitioner Union on the basis of resolution
passed	by the Council is illegal and bad-in-law. The
same	has been rightly set aside by exercising the power
of	review by the respondent No.2 by its order dated 9th
June	2006 which is impugned before us. We therefore
find	no merits in the case of the petitioners and
dismiss	the writ petition. Writ petition stands

¶39

dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to

¶40

costs.

¶41

( J.N. PATEL J. )

¶42

( S.J. KATHAWALLA J.)

Ichalkarangi Nagarpalika Adarsh Kamgar Union and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ichalkarangi Nagarpalika Adarsh Kamgar Union and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dholya Dosan Abel Vs Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Mirabai Nirmal Singh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kailash Shyamlal Vasvani Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sampatrao Ramachandra Patil Vs the Education Officer (Primary) and Ors.

Rupali Sushilsingh Hajari Vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission and Anr.

Grampanchayat Burambali Vs the Collector-Kolhapur District Kolhapur and Ors.